Skip to main content

About your Search

20110705
20110705
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
international issues of the day such as our topic for tonight, u.s./pakistan relations. on behalf of the wefpg and our board members who are present tonight, dawn, gayle, donna and teresa, i want to welcome everybody here. we're so glad that you could join us for this behind-the-headlines event. these are events on hot issues in the news, and recently we've done events on egypt, libya, women in the middle east, um, and our event tonight is with ambassador husain haqqani, the pakistani ambassador to the who will be joined by our friend and frequent speaker and moderator, washington post's senior national security correspondent karen deyoung. for a conversation on u.s./pakistan relations. the event could not be more timely, as we all know, given the increased tensions in the relationship between the two countries following the killing of osama bin laden. we're so pleased to have the ambassador with us tonight to explore the complexities and the importance of this relationship and extremely lucky to have karen back. i want to recognize a few guests who are here with us tonight, undersecretary of
and pakistan. with the help of pakistan. so i think that sometimes we just go from one end of greek allies, great friends which is what was your longtime, in the previous administration, two gosh, these guys are no good, et cetera. this is not the way to do business between two allies and partners. and i think we will not interpret the remarks as a letter. we understand them to be a reflection of american statement of policy, and the americans have the right to defend their homeland by ensuring that terrorists are plotting against the american homeland are dealt with. but as far as the other concern, we are very confident of our sovereignty. we would like to protect our sovereignty. and sovereignty requires that when operations take place in pakistan they should take place without knowledge and our participation. >> a quick follow. does that mean if there's a second rate, that your forces would fire on the rich? >> when i became ambassador to the united states, i went and saw very good colleague of mine, another professor of international, and i said i've been ambassador before but that wa
interests or an authorization debate in the congress. given all that is at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american military and economic resources to a civil war in libya. it is an expensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution, it is our responseability to determine whether we should be a party to libya's civil war. as a part of this process we will consider the terms and scope of the joint resolution before us today. i'm concerned this resolution would provide broad authorities, permitting significant expansion of the united states military involvement in libya's civil war. the resolution would authorize the president to reescalate united states military involvement in libya, to and potentially beyond the lead role it played at the beginning of the operation when the united states carried out intensive airstrikes on a daily basis. the resolution would on
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3